From: Patrick Maupin on
On May 9, 8:58 am, Ed Keith <e_...(a)> wrote:
> Stepping back from the political/philosophical/religious arguments, I'd like to give some real advice based on my own perspective.
> How you license your software should be based on how you want it to be used.
> If you are releasing an end user application I do not care how you license it. If it is useful I will use it. If you believe some of the code is of commercial value, and that you hope to profit from it you should use the GPL, so you can license it separately to someone who wants to use it in a closed source product.
> If, on the other hand you are releasing a library, to be incorporated into other products, if you release it under the GPL I will not take the time to learn it. I do not want to have to think about what took I can legally use for what job. Libraries with permissive licenses can be used in any project. I can not use GPL or LGPL code in many contracts. So I do not waist my time learning to use libraries covered by restrictive licenses. So if you want me to even consider using your library do not use GPL, or LGPL. I favor the Boost license in this case. Again, if you want to also offer other licenses, for a fee, you should use GPL, I will not use it, but others might, and you may get paid for your work.
> The bottom line is: if you want the largest possible user base, go with a less restrictive license; If you hope to profit financially from your work, use the GPL.

I agree completely, except for the part where you say "Stepping back
from the political/philosophical/religious arguments." I've been
trying to say practically the same thing, but it's apparently
contentious :-)